Jump to content

Rock the Vote '24: update (09/10) - It's "Debate Night" - do yourself a favor and play a video game instead


Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

 

That's weird because I'm right next door in Utah. Maybe it's because I've moved closer to the capitol since last election.


The rural areas here are pretty bad. I got coal rolled on me the other day by a guy in a truck with UNVAXD as the license and FJB painted (not a sticker) on his tailgate, while flying his Trump 2024 flag on it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:
 
WWW.CNN.COM

Russell Vought, a co-author of Project 2025, was caught on a secretly recorded video saying that Trump’s denials of any connection with the conservative policy blueprint were politics.

 

 

It sounds like Trump is Vought and paid for.

 

Am I right?

  • Guillotine 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the hype, but please let’s not get too excited. I’m no statistician but these polls, while trending blue, are still within their margins of error, right? This has turned from a sure Trump win into something of an even contest. I’m waiting for after the convention to see what kind of momentum can be sustained.

  • stepee 1
  • True 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MarSolo said:

Sidebar: is anyone else having a hard time reacting to posts? I keep getting an error every time I do it.


“Sorry, there was a problem reacting to this content.”

 

Nope!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MarSolo said:

Sidebar: is anyone else having a hard time reacting to posts? I keep getting an error every time I do it.


“Sorry, there was a problem reacting to this content.”


This is a sad way to try and farm upvotes :nottalking:

  • Haha 3
  • Ukraine 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, S3xB0t said:

I love the hype, but please let’s not get too excited. I’m no statistician but these polls, while trending blue, are still within their margins of error, right? This has turned from a sure Trump win into something of an even contest. I’m waiting for after the convention to see what kind of momentum can be sustained.


the most important thing is for Democratic leaning voters to not get complacent and decide they don’t need to take time out of their day to vote. That there’s much excitement by everyone else that Harris has it in the bag. Democratic voters have been awful about this before and lost elections through sheer laziness. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harris opens up second path to victory according to WaPo polling

 

Quote

Our modeling shows that Harris has two paths to possible success: the Rust Belt states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and the Sun Belt states of Georgia, Arizona and Nevada as well as North Carolina (she could win in either region and still claim the White House). Meanwhile, Trump must win both the Rust Belt and Sun Belt to triumph.

 

  • stepee 1
  • Hype 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

 

Indeed. Trump can win if he has a map similar to 2016, even if Harris gets a few of Biden's wins. Here's an example:

 

ukO8IDV.png

 

But here's what happens if Harris wins just the Sun Belt or just the Rust Belt:

 

CtUIfIM.png

 

hB4n7WV.png

 

 

And just for fun, here's what happens if Texas and Florida go blue but for some reason all the other more competitive shit doesn't in Bizarro World:

 

SYlNbHe.png

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

txHBStB.png

 

This isn't a good policy and won't help home prices come down, but also:

 

GVCyJK5W8AAGRco?format=jpg&name=medium


I’m no economist, but I have no idea how to lower the cost of housing without seriously pissing off anyone who has bought a house in the past four years and possibly financially screwing them over.

  • Halal 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

txHBStB.png

 

This isn't a good policy and won't help home prices come down, but also:

 

GVCyJK5W8AAGRco?format=jpg&name=medium

 

You'll have to educate me about this, because I know there's a number of programs already to help first time home buyers. How would expanding that hurt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, LazyPiranha said:


I’m no economist, but I have no idea how to lower the cost of housing without seriously pissing off anyone who has bought a house in the past four years and possibly financially screwing them over.

 

IMO you just need to build a tonne of housing. Unfortunately, that requires buy-in from local/state jurisdictions, who usually control zoning and code (both of which need to change). Federal governments can certainly do something, but it's basically just bribery to get local places to take action. In Canada, the feds are offering crazy money to provinces and cities that change their zoning to allow denser housing, and it's working (in terms of getting zoning changed).

 

But also, federal social housing needs to come back in a big way.

  • stepee 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Reputator said:

 

You'll have to educate me about this, because I know there's a number of programs already to help first time home buyers. How would expanding that hurt?


No additional housing stock but an influx of buyers with $25k+ in subsidized down payments just means more competition for the same pieces of real estate. It will push prices even higher.

 

The problem is largely supply in this particular market.

  • True 2
  • Halal 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Xbob42 said:

Yeah I'm gonna need more than "this isn't a good policy."

 

If you give everyone $30k to buy a house, then the likely outcome is that houses become $30k more expensive very quickly. Canada has tried this, and it's done nothing. Solution is more housing (and faster, simpler, denser housing).

  • True 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CitizenVectron said:

 

If you give everyone $30k to buy a house, then the likely outcome is that houses become $30k more expensive very quickly. Canada has tried this, and it's done nothing. Solution is more housing (and faster, simpler, denser housing).

It didn't say anything about giving "everyone" $30k.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Xbob42 said:

It didn't say anything about giving "everyone" $30k.


Doesn’t need to be everyone, but importantly the potential first time home buyers are a huge cohort. Many will now be competing with each other for homes on the lower end of the price scale, which will invariably push prices up. When the bottom goes up, so does everything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sblfilms said:


No additional housing stock but an influx of buyers with $25k+ in subsidized down payments just means more competition for the same pieces of real estate. It will push prices even higher.

 

The problem is largely supply in this particular market.

 

I don't disagree that we need more housing, but essentially saying "more people being able to buy houses = bad" is something I philosophically can't agree with. It's very hard to buy a house without equity, and first timers need that boost.

  • True 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, not sure I'm in agreement here. Even if it drives the prices up, it gets new homeowners over that first, and increasingly difficult hurdle: the down payment. This in conjunction with lots of new housing (be it federally incentivized or otherwise) I could see doing some real good long-term.

 

Would really like to see a lot more housing being built, and some sort of regulations barring those megacorporations from buying up all the properties. Maybe something to drive homeownership away from being so investment-focused for so many people. Landlords are scum and should be a thing of the past.

  • Halal 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

In the current environment, housing prices are largely a supply-side issue which a demand-side solution like this one really does little-to-nothing to address.

 

Price fixing is the bigger issue, which Harris has said she wants to address. Anecdotally where I live there have been a huge amount of new apartments and housing communities built, but a lot are owned by just a couple firms. Ergo adding housing hasn't helped to alleviate pricing in central Florida for a long time now, because of price collusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with others here... NIMBY and lack of additional housing is the issue. Giving people money to purchase houses will just increase the prices of house. 

Need to incentivize builders and municipalities to build more housing and fix supply side. Demand is not the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...